Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pradeep Sehrawat vs Govt. Of Nctd on 7 April, 2025
1
O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1610/2019
Reserved on: 20.03.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Pradeep Sehrawat, Aged-36 Years, 'C',
(Fresh Appointment, Grade - II, DASS)
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sehrawat,
R/o Chopal Wali Gali, Near Mata Mandir,
Village Tilangpur Kotla, P.O. Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardoma, Delhi-92.
3. The Secretary (Services),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Services Department (III),
ih Level, B-Wing Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi -11 0113
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma and Mr. Amit
Yadav)
2
O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 (Annex.A/1) in respect of the applicant and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to appoint the applicant to the post of Grade-II (DASS) after given age relaxation being Govt.
Servant with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant, a Central Government civilian employee, had applied for the post of Grade-II (DASS) in the service department of the Government of National Capital Territory (GNCT) of Delhi. The applicant, born on 14.04.1983, claimed age relaxation as a departmental candidate with three years of continuous service in the Central Government. Despite qualifying for the selection and obtaining higher marks than the cutoff, the respondents rejected the applicant's candidature, declaring him over-aged.3 O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4) 2.2. The rejection was based on the ground that the applicant's current post of Senior Compiler is not in the same line or allied cadre as the post of Grade-II (DASS). However, learned counsel for the applicant contended that this rejection is arbitrary, illegal, and against the rules as the advertisement for the post in question did not specify that the age relaxation was only for candidates in the same line or allied cadre. In fact, the advertisement only mentioned that age relaxation would be available to government employees with at least three years of continuous service.
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the decision rendered in OA No. 2464/2010 (Pawan Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi) where this Tribunal allowed the applicant's OA and upheld his entitlement to age relaxation benefits. Learned counsel contended that the tribunal held that the advertisement's announcement of age relaxation for government employees should be interpreted to mean that all government employees, regardless of their cadre or department, would be eligible for age relaxation. 2.4. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a clarification issued by the Govt. of NCT 4 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) service department on 07.03.2017. Learned counsel stated that in this clarification, the department stated that age relaxation would be granted to candidates working in posts that are not necessarily in the same line or allied cadre, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel argued that this clarification supports applicant's claim for age relaxation, as his current post of Senior Compiler involves duties that are similar to those required for the post of Grade-II (DASS).
2.5. In light of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for quashing the rejection order and directing the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of age relaxation.
3. Supporting the case of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant urged the following grounds:
3.1 Arbitrary decision: The respondents' rejection of the applicant's request for age relaxation is arbitrary, unjustified, and without any reasonable basis. The advertisement for the post of Grade-II (DASS) did not specify that the service must be in the same line or allied cadre for Group 'C' posts. In fact, the condition of same line 5 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) or allied cadre was only mentioned for Group 'B' posts.
Therefore, the respondents' decision to reject the applicant's request for age relaxation on this ground is liable to be quashed.
3.2 Precedent judgment: The present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2464/2010 decided on 11.02.2011 in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi. In this judgment, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's OA and upheld their entitlement to age relaxation benefits. The Tribunal held that the advertisement's announcement of age relaxation for government employees should be interpreted to mean that all government employees, regardless of their cadre or department, would be eligible for age relaxation. 3.3 Similar nature of duties: The duties of Senior Compiler and Grade-II (DASS) are almost identical in nature. The applicant has submitted that the nature of duties for the post of Senior Compiler and Grade-II (DASS) are similar, and therefore, a relationship can be established between the two posts. This similarity in duties supports the applicant's claim for age relaxation, as it demonstrates that 6 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) the applicant's experience and skills are relevant to the post of Grade-II (DASS).
3.4 Non-consideration of duties: The respondents passed the impugned order without considering the nature of duties for the post of Senior Compiler vis-à-vis Grade-II (DASS). The respondents failed to take into account the similarity in duties between the two posts, which is a critical factor in determining the applicant's eligibility for age relaxation. This failure to consider the duties of the two posts renders the respondents' decision arbitrary and unjustified.
3.5 Entitlement to age relaxation: The applicant, as a Central Govt. employee with three years of continuous service, is entitled to age relaxation as per the rules. The applicant has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for age relaxation, including the requirement of three years of continuous service in the Central Government. Therefore, the respondents' decision to reject the applicant's request for age relaxation is without any basis and is liable to be quashed.
7O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4)
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's claim for age relaxation is entirely misconceived and without merit. 4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the applicant's current post of Senior Compiler is not in the same line or allied cadre as the post of Grade-II (DASS), which is a Ministerial Group-C post. This is a critical distinction, as the Recruitment Rules for Grade-II (DASS) specifically require a departmental candidate's post to be in the same line or allied cadre to qualify for age relaxation. 4.2. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the DOPT OM dated 27.03.2012, which provides that for appointment to Group 'C' posts by direct recruitment, the upper age limit can be relaxed up to 40 years of age for departmental candidates with three years of continuous service in the Central Government. However, this relaxation is only applicable if the departmental candidate's post is in the same line or allied cadre as the post being applied for. However, in the present case, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant's post of Senior Compiler is not in the same line or allied cadre as Grade-II 8 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) (DASS), and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to age relaxation.
4.3. Furthermore, the respondents submitted that the applicant is raising frivolous issues and has no cause of action or prima facie case to seek relief from the Tribunal. Learned counsel concluded by stating that the applicant's claim is entirely without merit, and the OA should be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. There is no challenge to terms and conditions of advertisement which are binding on the parties. The applicant was conscious of the terms and conditions stipulated in advertisement while participating in Selection process.
6.2. The nature of duties for the post of Senior Compiler (which is a non-ministerial, Statistical Cadre post), are re-
produced herein below:-
9O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4) Senior Compiler 1. Collection, scrutiny, compilation and computation of statistical data relating to census and various other schemes, surveys and projects.
2. Compilation of village town and village directory data, verification of data contained in camera ready copies of formats/schedule/census publications/bulletins/reports, etc.
3. Undertake typing and computer entry of statistical data.
4. Conducting base line survey, half-ycarly survey and reverification survey in connection with sample registration scheme and submission of reports.
5. Proof reading, comparison and checking of data entered/posted by compilers working under them.
6. Assist officers in imparting training to enumerators and supervisors during Census operations.
7. Checking of village registers, charge registers and entries made in abridged house lists during Census operations.
8. Assist officers in scrutiny and mathematical accuracy of statistical tables.
9. Assist in making arrangements for meetings, workshops, seminars and conferences.
10. Attend to other misc, duties assigned to them by their seniors.
DUTIES IN SAMPLE REGISTRATION SYSTEM (VS DIVISION)
1. Conducting base line survey (preparation of National Map, House listing, House hold schedule), Half-yearly survey and 10 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) reverification survey under SRS, submission of reports, etc.
2. Collection, scrutiny, compilation and computation of SRS data.
3. Undertaking data entry relating to SRS.
4. Proof reading and checking of SRS records.
5. Assist officers in imparting training to enumerators and supervisors under SRS.
6. Assist officers in scrutiny and mathematical accuracy of statistical tables.
7. Assist in making arrangements for meetings, workshops, seminars and conferences, etc.
8. Other misc, duties.
DUTIES IN CRS
1. Data entry and processing of data in computer.
2. Comparison, validation and editing of entered data.
3. Assist the senior in preparation of reports of the meeting and their organization.
4. Scrutiny and. compilation of CRS data received from the States.
6.3. As per the Handbook for Personnel Officers 2013 issued by Govt of India, DOP&T the character of posts, i.e., Ministerial or Non-Ministerial has been defined as under: 11 O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4) "2.2.1 Ministerial or non- ministerial Ministerial servant means a Government servant of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely clerical, and any other class of servant specifically defined as such by general or specific order of a local government.
Local government does not include a Chief Commissioner. FR 9(17) Those member of Group B service whose duties are predominantly clerical shall be called as ministerial servants.
Having regard to the nature of the duties attached to them, the posts of Private Secretary to Secretaries and Joint Secretaries should be classified as 'Ministerial'. Unless already classified, all new posts should be classified into 'Ministerial'.
Posts of Senior Gestetner Operator are to be classified as 'Ministerial'.
All proposals regarding classification of posts as 'Ministerial' or 'non Ministerial' should be referred to the Department of Personnel & Training who will, where necessary consult UPSC."
6.4. The construction of service and its classification under The Delhi Administration Subordinate Services Rules, 1967, which speaks as under, have not been challenged in present OA :-
"3. Construction of service and its classification:-
2 (1) "On and from the date of commencement of these rules, there shall be constituted one Central Civil Service, known as the Subordinate Service of the Delhi Administration.] (2) The Service shall have four grades, namely :
Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV 12 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) [(3) The posts in Grade I shall be Central Civil posts, Class II Group 'B' (Gazetted) and those in Grades II, in and IV shall be Central Civil posts Group 'C (Non- Gazetted).] (4) Members of the service shall, in the normal course, be eligible for appointment to various grades of the service to which they belong and not to the other service."
Recruitement to Grade-II :
(II) Recruitment to Grade II;
(a) 33-1/3% of the vacancies in Grade-II shall be filled in by direct rectt. On the basis of competitive examination to be held in such manner as may be prescribed by the Chief Secretary from time to time. The educational qualification for appointment shall be as under, Educational Qualification: Degree of recognised university in Arts, Commerce, Science, or Agriculture.
Age Limit: Between 18-25 Years (Relaxable in case of Schedule Castes/Tribes and other special categories in accordance with the rules and other orders of the Govt. of India, issued from time to time, and in case of Govt. servants in accordance with the Govt. of India orders on the subject).
1. Substituted vide notification No. F.2(34).88-S.II, dated 02.11.1992.
2. Substituted vide notification No. F.2(41).85-S.II, dated 21.08.1989.
3. Substituted vide notification No. F.2(35). W9-S.III, dated 1.12.1980.
(b) 66-2/3% of the vacancies in Grade-II shall be filled in by promotion of officers of Grade-III, having least three years of regular service in the grade on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to rejection of unfit on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules and
(b) the Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 330-530 and the trained kannados in the scale of Rs. 330-560 accordance with the R/Rs and have three years regular service in the grade shall be eligible to be considered for promotion to Grade II of the service.
(d) Henceforth the vacancies in Grade-II shall be filled in the following manners:-
Ist Vacancy By promotion 13 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) 2nd Vacancy By promotion 3rd Vacancy By direct recruitment.
* 1(2) (1) Substantive appointment shall be made only once in the service of an officer which shall be in the entry grade after the officer has successfully completed the period of probation irrespective of the availability of permanent post in the grade.
Specific orders of confirmation will be issued with the approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(ii) There Shall be no confirmation on promotion. The appointing authority shall, however, on completion of prescribed period of probation, assess the work and conduct the officer and is the officer is found fit to hold the higher grade, the appointing authority shall pass an order declaring that the officer concerned has successfully completed the probation.
(iii) If the appointing authority considers that the work of the officer has not been satisfactory, or needs to be watched for some more time, he may revert him to the post or grade from which he was promoted, or extend the period of probation at the case may be.
PART -V- Direct Recruitment Inclusion in the list not to confer right to appointment. The inclusion of a candidate's name in the approved list shall cover no right so appointment unless the Chief Secretary is satisfied after such enquiry, as he may consider necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the respective grade and an actual offer of appointment is made to the candidate." 6.5. The work of the compiler is related to Statistics and the work of Grade-II DASS is ministerial in nature. The appointment of applicant flows from RR's for the post of compiler which have not been placed on record to establish that the applicant shall be entitled to age relaxation. Decision in this regard will rest with the department. The general instructions regarding the relaxation of age in the 14 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) Central Government DOP&T notification insofar as not applying to Group C, referred to by the applicant are not relevant to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the applicant is also seeking benefit under said notification insofar as age relaxation is concerned. The guidelines in proper perspective carried away the expression, "same or allied" services, for the purpose of granting age relaxation. Even going by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, it can be deduced that notwithstanding the classification for the posts in Group A, B or C, age relaxation for government servants can be provided subject to the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. The guidelines have to be read in lines of promotion avenues arising from selection to Grade - II which is a feeder channel to Grade- I DASS. The service rendered by the applicant in the other department is not on the same line or allied. Age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any of the government servants working in various departments, when the service rendered by them, has no connection, characteristic or relationship with the post they have applied for.
15O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) 6.6. In Union of India v. Dr.(Mrs.) S.B.Kohli reported in AIR 1973 SC 811, classification as between F.R.C.S. in general surgery and F.R.C.S. in Orthopaedics was upheld in relation to appointment to the post of a Professor of Orthopaedics on the ground that the classification made on the basis of requirement of a post graduate degree in particular specialty was not "without reference to the objectives sought to be achieved and there can be no question of discrimination".
6.7. The following observations were made in State of Mysore v. P.Narasing Rao [1968 (1) SCR 407]:-
"it is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Where any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be sonic rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 15 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Art. 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Art. 14 and 16 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) it should be construed as such. Hence there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured. Articles 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection."
6.8. In The State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shri Trilocki Nath Khosa & Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 19, it is held as follows :
"In order to establish that the protection of the equal opportunity clause has been denied to them, it is not enough for the respondents to, say that they have been treated differently from others, not even enough that a differential treatment has been accorded to them in comparison with others similarly circumstanced. Discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis.... On the facts of the case, classification on the basis of educational qualifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstance and one has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification.
6.9. In M.A.Rashid v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1974 SC 2249, the Supreme Court held that the opinion of the State Government cannot be said to be based on any matter extraneous to the scope and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Statute. The materials supporting the 17 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) subjective satisfaction indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the prescribed state of affairs exists.
6.10. In State of Kerala v. M.K.Krishnan Nair reported in AIR 1978 SC 747 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"......in other words, neither Article 14 nor Article 16 was attracted to the facts of the case at all inasmuch as the Officers belonging to the two wings never were nor are similarly situated or identically circumstanced. "
6.11. In Om Prakash v. State of J & K., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1001, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 8, held as follows:
"8. "Equality before the Law" or "equal protection of the laws" within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India means absence of any arbitrary discrimination by the law or in their administration. No undue favour to one or hostile discrimination to another should be shown. A classification is reasonable when it is not an arbitrary selection but rests on differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which the classification is made. The classification permissible must be based on some real and substantial distinction, a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis.. ........(See State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC
75)). The classification must not be arbitrary but be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the law. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that differentia 18 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them."
6.12. In Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1981 SC 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "The wider concept of equality before the law and the equal protection of laws is that there shall be equality among equals. Even among equals there can be unequal treatment based on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved."
6.13. The rule of equality means that equals have to be treated as equals. The applicant has failed to establish the said test. The equal cannot be treated at par with unequal. The onus lies upon the applicant to prove that such a condition can be said to be irrational to the object of recruiting persons with experience and service in the same line or allied cadres. Merely because the services rendered by him in different department, is not considered for the purpose of granting age relaxation, it is not open to him to contend that that the condition imposed are not applicable or relatable to Group C rather the applicant is drawing similarity to his service being rendered in the same line or 19 O.A. No. 1610/2019 Item No. 68 (C-4) allied cadres. Having participated in Selection process without even challenging the terms stipulated being ultra- vires of the Constitution of India or for that matter, having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the age relaxation which is a concession cannot be claimed as matter of right.
6.14. In Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh reported in 2005 (3) SCC 618, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"Even assuming that there is a power of relaxation under the Regulations, we think that the power of relaxation cannot be exercised in such a manner that it completely distorts the Regulations. The power of relaxation is intended to be used in marginal cases where exceptionally qualified candidates are available. We do not think that they are intended as an 'open Sesame' for all and sundry."
6.15. In Union of India v. Alok Kumar reported in 2010 (4) SCALE 92, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The Court would normally adopt an interpretation which is in line with the purpose of such regulations. The rule of contextual interpretation can be purposefully applied to the language..."
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of above detailed analysis, there is no infirmity in action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant. The OA is dismissed.20 O.A. No. 1610/2019
Item No. 68 (C-4) 7.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/